This would be so much easier to figure out if there were more opportunities for testing. I really wish there were more reasonable laws regarding testing of illicit substances.

I also wonder if any of these are more/less anxiogenic than LSD. If less, and someone has a really fun trip on an LSx early in their LSD career, they could well have a misconception of LSD's effects, leading them to claim actual LSD is something else. I've bought tons of LSD over the years, and only once did i get a DOx, and the variations in the rest up my trips i'd always just chalked up to the vagaries of LSD experience, but sometimes the varying durations and other more objective measures made me wonder about such things.

yeah, it makes me wonder if my second LSD trip was actually LSD - it was a mere 6-8 hours but not weak at all. Qualitatively different in a lot of ways, but only subtly. I mean, I'm guessing it probably was LSD, but this comment on the shorter duration makes me curious haha.

personally, the shorter duration of non-LSD ergoloids would be a turn off for me... I love the length of LSD, maybe because I love the effects so much.

I also never want the trip to end. The longer the trip, the more time I have to experience LSD's amazing effects. Although, since I haven't found acid for 2 years or so now I guess if I got my hands on something that, apart from duration, is experientially basically the same, with more visuals, I would love to try it. But if the real thing's around I'd be pretty pissed to pay the same price for half the fun. Oh, and the other problem would be that I like what some people here are calling the "paranoia." I consider that part of the trip to be a vitally important precursor to 'ego death' that I strive for while tripping. Blow through the fear and you will truly free yourself.

Morpholide too, but I never saw anything definitive. And a few others. I think its clear this has been happening for a while, but now we have actual evidence to support....

The GCMS on the face of it doesn't support LS-pentylamide or LS-sec butylamide or morpholide, the spectrum is wrong.
Neither is that peak LSD, unless it has been derivitized for analysis with deuterated TMS.
we don't know whether that peak is the only active in the tested blotters.
all interesting but not conclusive by a long stretch.

I was not the one that interpreted the GC/MS, as I am not a chemist, just a commentator, but I will reach out to the guy that did and post his remarks. He explained to me why he thought that it was LSP or LSB, but I won't attempt to do that justice here as it is beyond my scope.

I'll get him to write something about his reasoning and post it in the next few days.

Part of the reason the GCMS is weird is d/t artifacts from the paper and ink...

I am in Europe and have used LSD (or at least what I'm all but certain was LSD) for just shy of twenty years. I have yet to come across a tab (or other medium) whose effects varied significantly enough for me to think for one second it wasn't LSD.

However, it is an intriguing thread and I could believe that there are some doses in circulation that are very similar to LSD itself but are actually analogues. The number of said possible tabs in possible circulation would appear to be very small - vanishingly small, in my experience - as to not even register on the scale in the way that DOx tabs have for some (never seen one myself) though.

Also, c'mon fellas, LSD really isn't that hard to make. The local free-party organisers used to churn it out round here and all was tested at high purity (via police seizure GC/MS reports and user experience at least). They did also knock up bathtubs full of MDMA and various other stuff too so presumably had at least one pet chemist and various other good precursor suppliers too, mind. But that's just a smallish bunch of Welsh(ish) hippies managing it. This pattern of supply is pretty common in the UK at least throughout my years of experience.

All sounds deeply paranoiac to me but am not averse to the concept of a certain small percentage of supply being "different". I can't see for a second that this would be genuinely widespread though. Folks would pay more for analogues. Just look at stuff like Methoxetamine, 6-APB, MPA and so on. Makes no sense to me.

It is not about price or difficulty (indeed, any of the aforementioned lysergamides are on par more or less with LSD as regards difficulty of synth), but rather about using precursors that are easier to obtain and less watched...

I don't think the stuff is super widespread. My guess is that one crew churned out a decent bit of it and it still gets around and they may still do so from time to time.

Me and others still disagree. This conclusion is far too cut and dried. Based on a very scant physical evidence, relative to the total number of hits distributed/consumed. Combined with a purely mental and perfunctory process of "deductive reasoning" this sweeping generalization is being arrived at which totally dismisses the experiences and subjective judgments of a large number of very experienced users. Its quite arrogant IMO.

The experiences of so many that LOTS of supposed "LSD" felt VERY VERY different from the documented effects of pure LSD, comparison of various experiences, combined with ample evidence from the literature as provided by SKL that related substances are in fact potent enough to fit on a blotter, testimony from large scale producers themselves like Sands that they were aware of and in fact produced some of these "alternates", and knowledge that the Erlich reagent is quite non-specific and will register a positive result for at least an entire family of molecules that are not LSD, in my mind should place the presumption of likely correctness on the subjective judgments of so many users, and place a stronger burden of proof on the "99.99% of what is sold as really is pure LSD" hypothesis.

One can make flimsy presumptive rationalizing arguments, and cite irregular, statistically meaningless, poorly documented scattershot tests of 0.000000000001% of distributed doses all you like, but I'm going to place more confidence in the human brain's remarkable ability to make ultra-fine discrimination in effects, and the reports of highly experienced humans actually consuming the drug over many years more than those insufficient arguments. Based on my own experiences and those of many others I know, the presence of real, pure genuine LSD is in fact NOT very common in what has been distributed for decades.

Honestly I dont understand the motivations behind these continual attempts to argue that almost all "LSD" is really and always has really been genuine LSD, and that people claiming otherwise are just somehow mentally deluding themselves. Why is it so important to deny and belittle the subjective reports, impressions and conclusions of so many veteran consumers that pure true LSD is much rarer than claimed? In whose interest is it to foster a conclusion that they are all making an incorrect judgments, and that in fact all LSD is real? Who is benefiting from such arguments?

If that lil rant was aimed at me you missed my point by a mile, Dwayne. I know that genuine LSD is incredibly widespread. I know DOx is fairly widespread in some circles but far from common. I have just recently been made aware of LS? and it seems pretty reasonable to me but only in relatively small circulation so far.

Seeing as "European" acid is what seems to be most in question I just thought I'd chip in from the perspective of someone who has been heavily involved in the European acid scene (including at distribution level for much (but not very recently) of that time) for 20-odd years to point out that this is a new one on me.

The US acid scene seems way more complex and shifty to me, to be honest. But have never sampled US acid so am probably mistaken and maybe I also have no clue and have never been anything but an EU pawn

The worst blotters we've seen in terms of lousy psychedelic effects and far-too-strong bodyload have come from Europe.

In fact, the very blotters with the tested LS? were I believe Euro in origin. I acquired an entire sheet of them (I found out via means I cant discuss what print it was) around the proper timeframe that while pleasant and "clean" feeling did feel subjective NOT like the real thing, and I know for a fact that these were being VERY widely distributed, and offered by numerous sources... there must have been tens of thousands in circulation by sellers both in Europe and in the US.

If the Euro acid scene is better now and you personally have been graced with good sources, congratulations. And I think it is getting better... I recently did some of a variation of the Malice In Wonderland print, said to be laid from fresh crystal manufactured in the US that, while only very mildly visual at 2.5 hits with open eyes, with closed eyes, to music, had me seeing some rather impressive visuals. It did create the "sense of awe" I associate with LSD (made me cry like a little girl at a viewing of the AWESOME Hubble Omnimax movie, haha!). Though the fact there were no open eye visuals seemed wrong given that the slight body load present had formerly been associated with overwhelming open eye visuals. So while it may in fact have not been LSD it certainly seemed quite nice. Though I am guessing I would have needed 4 hits to cause open eye visual effect, which is pathetic, IMO.

btw, Shambles, my "lil rant" was not directed at you, nor SKL, nor anyone else in particular, but at this whole trend of Johhny Come Latelys to LSD consumption - 20 years is not long enough - of insisting "All LSD is Real." Again I ask, who is benefiting from this trendy and specious argument? I am not saying you are anybody's pawn, but perhaps that the wider prevalence of the argument has affected your impressions, and that it has other roots beyond just intellectual debate.

I do wonder what authority/basis/evidence you have for your categorical certitude that you KNOW real LSD is extremely widespread in Europe? The subjective user reports of you and alot of people you know (or read) that it FELT real to them? Well why are those reports considered golden, but reports of me and others that they've encountered lots of "LSD" that felt way off are considered suspect and the result of "placebo effect" or "set/setting?"

All I can say is that I have been deeply involved in the EU acid scene my whole adult life - that's "just" 20-odd years but I'm a nipper compared to many I deal with. I know people who make it. I know people that lay it. I know people that sell it. I know people that use it. None have noticed any change since the peak (for my generation) of the early 90s boom. I am not insisting all LSD is real - just that the vast majority appears (and tests) to be. The fact that other ergolides would maybe pass a GC/MS test is interesting. The fact that the effects for the vast majority still fit with LSD and not LS? is also relevant.

I passed it to a chemist friend of mine who would prefer to remain anonymous, and he suggests one of the following:

N-(3-pentyl)-lysergamide ("LSP")
N-(sec-butyl)-lysergamide ("LSB")

sec-LSB gives an almost indistinguishable MS to actual LSD, so I doubt it's that. It's not the N-(3-Pentyl) derivative as specified by Vecktor as well, don't know why the person you asked would mention these.

I personally have not a clue what this is -- the fragment for d-Lysergic acid diethylamide, LAMPA or sec-LSB is always at 324, yet here we have 326 (the only one that comes to mind is deuterated-LSD which is usually 327). The huge peak at 72 is suspicious and the initial peaks at 44/58 as well (small substituted amines?).

296-208 is usual fragment for N-Et-LSD and a peak adjacent to 209 is present
310-209 characteristic of nor-LSD/nor-iso-LSD

So, you're missing quite a bunch of the normal peaks but you have what might be degradation products or side impure product present, but it seems pretty inconclusive.

It is not about price or difficulty (indeed, any of the aforementioned lysergamides are on par more or less with LSD as regards difficulty of synth), but rather about using precursors that are easier to obtain and less watched...

It all comes down to POCl3, for most people I know. The one guy who posted a successful synthetic protocol has become known as something of a daredevil for the level of risk involved. Stuff is kind of evil to work with.

The experiences of so many that LOTS of supposed "LSD" felt VERY VERY different from the documented effects of pure LSD

Could you tell us what you believe the "documented" effects of pure LSD are? Perhaps this is where the confusion lies. The "documented effects" of LSD cover a pretty big range.

The subjective user reports of you and alot of people you know (or read) that it FELT real to them? Well why are those reports considered golden, but reports of me and others that they've encountered lots of "LSD" that felt way off are considered suspect and the result of "placebo effect" or "set/setting?"

Simply put I don't have any faith whatsoever in your ability to claim that LSD is "Like LSD but not quite LSD". It's like the endless anecdotes you hear about people who claim they can tell "mexican cubensis" apart from "cambodian cubensis". Lots of people claim it but if you asked me to give them double blind tests for money I'd take that action in a heartbeat.

sec-LSB gives an almost indistinguishable MS to actual LSD, so I doubt it's that. It's not the N-(3-Pentyl) derivative as specified by Vecktor as well, don't know why the person you asked would mention these.

I personally have not a clue what this is -- the fragment for d-Lysergic acid diethylamide, LAMPA or sec-LSB is always at 324, yet here we have 326 (the only one that comes to mind is deuterated-LSD which is usually 327). The huge peak at 72 is suspicious and the initial peaks at 44/58 as well (small substituted amines?).

296-208 is usual fragment for N-Et-LSD and a peak adjacent to 209 is present
310-209 characteristic of nor-LSD/nor-iso-LSD

So, you're missing quite a bunch of the normal peaks but you have what might be degradation products or side impure product present, but it seems pretty inconclusive.

Thanks for that nuke. It's nice to see someone able to interpret what that graph actually means or indeed whether it means anything at all.

These other LSx compounds are very interesting and glad I stumbled across this thread. I agree with you dwayneHoover and I'm relatively inexperienced with acid but fairly experienced with psychedelics and some of the 'LSD' I've had just does not feel the same as some other hits I've had. I have tried to take others advice and chalk these things up to set and setting and varying dosages but it just doesnt sit well with me.

The difference in physical effects I've noticed between some doses has been my biggest obstacle in accepting the 'set and setting' idea. I have had some trips that felt pretty much like Clean LSD ive had but just with much greater physical effects like jaw and body tension. I know its not unheard of for LSD to cause these effects but it subjectively just did not feel the same. I've done a fair amount of ecstasy pills containing adulterants vs. pure MDMA for a relative comparison and intuitively have my doubts. While searching the net one day, not even related to the topic at hand I happened to find a dea confiscation site or something that dropped a bomb on me. They had test results of various drugs collected and had 2 sheets of LSD. One tested positive for strictly LSD, the other tested positive for I believe LSD/2ci/Mdma...

So If anyone has any insight how common of an occurrence mixed blotters like this might be which could possibly account for some of those who report 'it feels like LSD but slightly off' and maybe like the 2ci at least in that mix synergizing with the LSD enough to increase the physical effects slightly I would be interested.

In the last 15 years since I started taking acid, I have had at approxemately 10-15 different acid trips that was definitely not LSD. And they were definitely not DOx either.
Some of them were very similar to lsd, and at the same time definitely different.
Others were poor imitations, that would be considered bunk to everybody but the total beginer.

I am 110 % sure that the difference between these trips did not come from set and setting.

So there is no doubt in my mind that there have been, and still are, LSx in circulation.

In an infinite sea of colourful ever changing fractals permeated by the divine

Posts

320

23-01-2011 12:08

Originally Posted by DwayneHoover

I do wonder what authority/basis/evidence you have for your categorical certitude that you KNOW real LSD is extremely widespread in Europe?

Like i mentioned already there are quite a few possibilities to get your blotters analysed in europe... i myself only have experience with the spanish harm reduction organisation energy control and they never reported lsd analogues on blotter (though DOX in some cases, but those blotters also nearly always got sold as psychedelic amphetamines, not as acid)

but i know that in the netherlands you can get your acid tested as well, and i know that a fuckin lot of acid in circulation is being distributed via amsterdam where it gets tested as to how many mcg are on one hit...

i'm really sorry for you americans that you don't have these possibilities, but it's a fact that nearly everything that is sold as acid in europe is just that: lsd, there is hard evidence for it

Rubbing our faces in the fact that you are in wonderous Amsterdam and we are not again, eh? damn you damn Amsterdamians!

Well, clearly there was a very large run of blotter in Europe that was NOT LSD and was in fact this mystery GC/MS because I do believe that's where these originated. If so that places doubt on the belief that "well since we have such easy access to testing almost everything 'over here' is real" since these were not, and were I know as a fact produced in quite huge quantity, based on the ubiquity of their being offered for a couple years. So apparently they felt "close enough" that no one bothered to have them tested or something?

Could you tell us what you believe the "documented" effects of pure LSD are? Perhaps this is where the confusion lies. The "documented effects" of LSD cover a pretty big range.

The subjective user reports of you and alot of people you know (or read) that it FELT real to them? Well why are those reports considered golden, but reports of me and others that they've encountered lots of "LSD" that felt way off are considered suspect and the result of "placebo effect" or "set/setting?"

Simply put I don't have any faith whatsoever in your ability to claim that LSD is "Like LSD but not quite LSD". It's like the endless anecdotes you hear about people who claim they can tell "mexican cubensis" apart from "cambodian cubensis". Lots of people claim it but if you asked me to give them double blind tests for money I'd take that action in a heartbeat.

Dude, scientists have been trusting LAB RATS to help them make very fine distinctions between the subjective effects of psychoactive chemicals for decades in thousands if scientific studies... and they can't even TALK! And you refuse to accept the judgments and statements of your fellow humans? *sigh*

Instead you chose to believe this totally hypothetical "reasoning" with statistically insignificant proof that "it's all been pure LSD." Preposterous. And the only people that this push to convince everyone of this specious pie-in-the-sky hypothesis helps... is the people making the bunk. Consider that, please.